The Guardian view on 16-year-old soldiers: armies are for adults

That the British army has, over the past year, continued its energetic recruitment of 16- and 17-year-olds should surprise no one who is familiar with the ongoing argument about the UK’s child soldiers, of whom there are around 2,300. Calls by campaigners, MPs and others to raise the age of enlistment to 18, in line with the vast majority of other countries (the UK is the only country in Europe or Nato to accept 16-year-olds), have been ignored before. But news that the number of under-18s joining the armed forces stands at its highest level for almost a decade, accounting for almost 30% of all new recruits in the year to March 2019, still has the power to shock – and rightly so.

This is not kneejerk anti-militarism or liberal squeamishness. When the age at which young people are allowed to leave school or training was raised to 18 in 2015, boosting the number of teenage army recruits was not what MPs or voters had in mind. One recent survey showed that almost three-quarters of people think army recruits should be at least 18, with 10% opting for 21. This view is supported by evidence, as well as children’s rights advocates, with figures showing that younger recruits are more vulnerable to mental health difficulties, and are more likely than older recruits to be killed or injured.

Related: Stretched British army 'leaning on' under-18s to fill its ranks

Given that they are disproportionately drawn from social groups and areas of the country with higher than average levels of illness and unemployment, and lower than average educational attainment, this may not be particularly surprising. But far from providing any kind of justification for bad outcomes, the backgrounds of the army’s youngest recruits – and the fact that economically deprived areas are targeted by recruiters, including by social media advertisements timed to coincide with GCSE results – are further evidence of the bad faith involved. For some older teenagers, a career (or at least a first job) in the armed forces may be suitable, desirable, or simply the best opportunity available to them. It is not in anyone’s best interests to make this decision before they are an adult – let alone when they are 15 years and seven months old, the current minimum age for applicants.

Even since the huge recent expansion of higher education, the path through A-levels to university is not for everyone. In part because of the disproportionate emphasis in British public life on elite universities, our record on technical and skills education is poor – particularly compared with some of our European neighbours. But while ministers, along with almost everyone else, need to spend more time thinking about alternative routes from school to the world of work (Philip Augar’s review, commissioned by Theresa May, was a promising step, but has been criticised by universities minister Jo Johnson), pushing more children towards military service is simply the wrong answer – even if the armed forces have a valuable role to play (as they do) in providing apprenticeships for over-18s.

With its recent pledge to expand the cadet programme of army, navy and air force training in schools, the government seems less inclined than ever to listen to those who counsel against the promotion of military lifestyles. The nationalistic turn of politics, combined with shortages of service personnel, may well enhance such policies’ appeal. But with military veterans already widely recognised internationally as a vulnerable demographic, for the UK armed forces to continue to recruit in the current pattern is shortsighted at best. At worst it is a cruel trick played on impressionable children by those who should, and probably do, know better.